24 results for 'cat:"Warranty" AND cat:"Class Action"'.
J. Drozd denies, in part, Toyota’s motion to dismiss putative class claims concerning defective sunroofs in 2021 RAV4 vehicles. The consumer has sufficiently alleged his claim for unjust enrichment and unfair competition, and for injunctive relief to have the defect repaired.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1464, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Vehicle, warranty, class Action
J. Simmons partly grants the consumers' motion for class certification concerning consumer protection and warranty claims against a supplement company and its "natural remedies" Sambucol product, which allegedly includes "unreported dietary" ingredients that may be illegal. While California and Missouri subclasses are certified, certification for the proposed nationwide classes is denied.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Simmons, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv137, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, warranty, class Action
J. Drozd denies, in part, Ford’s motion to dismiss class warranty claims arising from a defect in certain EcoBoost engines. They have sufficiently pleaded certain express warranty and implied warranty claims, and claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law, among others.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1796, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Consumer Law, warranty, class Action
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Thrash partially grants the manufacturer's motion to dismiss a product liability, warranty and fraud class action brought by the consumers arising from a defect in panoramic sunroofs in Mercedes-Benz vehicles which allegedly caused the sunroofs to suddenly shatter under normal driving conditions. The consumers claim that the manufacturer refused to cover repairs. Two of the consumers failed to notify the manufacturer of the defect before the action, therefore their express warranty claims are dismissed. One consumer's implied warranty claim is dismissed for failure to comply with the notice requirement. However, the class sufficiently alleged that the vehicles are unmerchantable. None of the consumers' state law claims are dismissed.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Thrash, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv671, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Product Liability, warranty, class Action
J. Drozd denies, in part, Toyota’s motion to dismiss a putative class action pertaining to allegedly defective sunroofs in 2021 RAV4 vehicles. The consumer has adequately pleaded their warranty and unjust enrichment claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1464, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Vehicle, warranty, class Action
J. Kronstadt grants Mars' motion for reconsideration of a prior order and thus dismisses with prejudice the consumer's class action that Mars engaged in deceptive and false advertising of its ALTOIDS Cinnamon Mints by featuring images of cinnamon sticks and the word "CINNAMON" even though the product does not contain cinnamon. The consumer does not prove his warranty claim because the front label of the product uses the phrase "Artificially Flavored" in a smaller font next to the image of the cinnamon sticks, which lessens the chance that a consumer would genuinely believe that the product contained authentic cinnamon.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Kronstadt, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv5617, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, warranty, class Action
J. Wright partially grants the company's motion to dismiss a nationwide class action brought by the homeowners arising from damages to their property allegedly caused by defective Power Grout and Hardener products. The motion is granted with respect to the homeowners' claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Minnesota statutes, as well as the negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and product liability claims. The homeowners failed to show that the Minnesota legislature intended for the statutes to apply extraterritorially. The homeowners failed to allege sufficient facts showing that damage occurred to their homes and property value to surmount the economic-loss doctrine.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Wright, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2173, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Product Liability, warranty, class Action
J. Fleming denies the car owners' motion for class certification, ruling typicality requirements are not met by the claims of those who bought allegedly defective vehicles because numerous individuals in the prospective class could have purchased cars after the expiration of their warranties, when the defective engines would not have been covered by General Motors.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Fleming, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv2638, NOS: Contract Product Liability - Contract, Categories: Product Liability, warranty, class Action
J. Alonso partially grants a tampon manufacturer's motion to dismiss a consumer class action that claims the company's Tampax product falsely asserts that its components are made from cotton and that it uses plant-based applicators instead of oil-based plastic applicators. The class has sufficiently alleged its deceptive practices, unfair practices and warranty claims, but not its negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, or common-law fraud claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Alonso, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv5036 , NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, warranty, class Action
J. Chesney allows consumer warranty claims to continue against Honda over claims that its 2016-2020 Honda Civic and Accord cars have defective "infotainment" systems, such as defective navigation systems and display screens. There is enough evidence on the record to sufficiently allege that certain defects are widespread and problematic enough to continue the suit, while a handful of other claims are tossed for being time-barred.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Chesney, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv6625, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Vehicle, warranty, class Action
J. DuBose grants in part two manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment on property owners’ negligence, warranty and other class claims related to allegedly defective Chinese-manufactured drywall. “Plaintiffs’ damages are limited to the diminution in value of their property, but costs of remediation are admissible to show such.”
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: DuBose, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv447, NOS: Property Damage Product Liability - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Product Liability, warranty, class Action
J. Vazquez partially grants the automakers' motion to dismiss the consumers' putative class action suit alleging that the automakers knowingly sold cars with likely-to-fail turbocharging systems without disclosing them. The consumers' fraud claims are dismissed, since the consumers have not pleaded sufficient facts to reasonably infer that the automakers had knowledge of the defect before the sales of the cars, and their express warranty claim fails for much the same reason. A negligent misrepresentation claim survives, since it is neither time-barred nor clearly barred by the economic loss doctrine.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Vazquez, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv4163, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, warranty, class Action
J. Davila grants final approval to a $50 million settlement that will end the consumers' class action against Apple alleging that MacBooks that came with defective "butterfly" keyboards that would fail after a year of use. Class members will receive cash payments ranging from $50 to $395, with those who experienced two or more particular repairs receiving the highest payment. The settlement represents between 9% and 28% of the total estimated damages at trial which "falls squarely within acceptable recovery ranges in this district."
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Davila, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 5:18cv2813, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Settlements, warranty, class Action